ML19319B121
| ML19319B121 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1973 |
| From: | Kastner J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001080743 | |
| Download: ML19319B121 (4) | |
Text
_.
.}
.) /, 'l rs a.
o AUG 161973 5M%e Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety, L IAD10 LOGICAL CONTROLS UNDER SECIl0K 20.101 vs. SECIl0N 20.103 - OCONEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE Rt] QUEST On June 26, 1973, an urgent request was received from the Duke Power Company to revise the Oconee Unit 1 Technical Specifications with agard to radiological controls. The specific change was to permit exposure to noble gases to be treated as whole body exposure allowing the control of these exposures under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.101 rather than 10 CFR 20.103. It was determined that this change did not involve a significant radiation hazard and that in the long term it is, in fact, the more conservative approach. Af t,tr receiving assurance from the applicant that
.it had done everything possible within the tecnnical specifications to i
reduce the source, the approval of the Radiological Assessment Branch was given for this change.
Im:nediats verbal approval of the change was requested by the Duke Power Company so that they could complete needed repairs on the pressurizer valves.
1.
Safety considerations Under Section 20.101 the exposure of individuals to radiation in restricted areas in any calendar quarter is limited to 1.25 rems. Since exposure limitations for concentrations of airborne radioactivity is addressed in Section 20.103 these exposures are not included in the quarterly limits of or the reporting requirements for Section 20.101. Under Section 20.103 exposure of individuals to concentrations of airborne radioactivity is limited such that the dose coanitmeat from this erps.,sure is less than 100 mrea in any period of seven coasecutive days.
t The point of the applicant's request was that it be allowed :o average exposure to concentrations of radioactive noble $;ases over a calendar quarter rather.than over a seven-day period. This would allow a higher exposure in the short term but restrict the allowed quarterly exposure to less than the limits of Section 20.101. We did not consider this to be a significant safety or radiation hazard because: a) exposures would be controlled under Section 20.101, b) one sould expect the radiation from the radioactive cloud to deliver a much higher dose than that from the gas i
held in the lungs 'or other body organs, and c) the concentration limits for radioactive noble gases (footnoted, " values given are for submersion in a semispherical infinite cloud of airborne materir.1" in Appendix B to 10 CFR 20) are based on external exposure.
1., _ _
m _,___
_,m
- g A. M
.orht @ cation.,No., 2.,K19.59.).r..
=-
sunawr >
g 1
om.
r Arc.no tan.s.m AECM OHO
- d8-N-Hou.s u H u
~. 79 3 p
AUG 1 e 1973 liarold R. Denton 2.
Legal Considerations This change is in accordance with Standard Technical Specification 6.9.2 (A)(3) shich reads as follovs. "For radioactive materials designated as 'SuB' in the ' Isotope' column of Appendix B, Table I. Column 1 of 10 CFR 20, the concentration value specified shall be based upea exposure to the material as an external radiation source. Individual exposures to those materials shall be accounted for as part of the limitation on individual dose in 520.101. These materials shall be subjcet to applicable process and other engineering controls." This specification is already in force in virtually all technical specifications reviewed and approved since late 1971.
(e.g., Quad Cities, Monticello, Vermont Yankee).
A precedent for this change was established by the June 5,1971 memorandum frors Peter Morris' to Consolidated Fdison shich received the concurrence of t
both Lester Rogers and Thomas Englehart (sce enclosure 1).
3 The Coacnission has the authority to make such chantes under Section 20.501 and Section 50.59 (see enclosure 2).
3.
Description of the Source The original explanation of the proble:s was that Xe-133 was coming from the containment giving a high concentration in the containment atmosphere which was limiting the stay times for personnel performing needed repairs on the pressurizer valves. The high concentrations in the containment were being back-calculated from purge line measurements.
The containment purge rate was not high enough to reduce the concentration to accepta11c levels. The source, primary coolant in the sump, could not be removed because radwaste tankage was full. The radwaste tanks could not be released because suf ficient dilution flow from Lake Keowee was not available due to low lake level and technical specification requirements to maintain the lake level.
As.it turned out the measurad air concentrations of Xe-133 were incorrect because a valva which isolates the charcoal filters from the purge line had accidencally been lef t open so that the actual source measured was 1-133 decay on the filter and not Xe-133 off-gas f ro:n the primary coolant sursp.
Originalsigned by Jacob Kastner Jacob Kastner, Chief Radiological Assessment Branch Directorate of Licensing
.k t
SURN E>
our>
y-
' form AEC-318 (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240 m
eekts-st eas-t eswa
.a
o liarold R. Denton AUG 2 61973 cc:
.V. Benaroya A. Schweneer 1.'Peltier F. Anderson H. Wilchens. OCC J. Nehemias W.' Cool RAB Staff l
.b.b -
- 1.......)
OFFKE D
-7278_
=>...J.Qya f;p t J Ka.s 6...er '
~
j
'4
.' 8/1)/1$......,#fihll3
... :......;[......
'^
om >
- +"I m ic.,i go...ng cxou..
.....-i.-...
p 3
p.',
Wo
. sv a v...
y p'
i r.g..y..a.ycz..e.e
. ~. e. s.i
- s, o.y q
., 'm, e. r..
...... ~
.I J..
.s g-f 4
I W / 'se il N
.IL'..f..C.
2',
4%
.e
/
- o..
..r s.s
- w.
A..,, i,..: qe w
D;cket No. SC-3 Cor.r,olidated Filiten Cor:pnny of Ecw York, Inc.
RlW:
!h'. '.li131a:i E. Caldwell, Jr.
' lice Praufd nt 4 Irvine; Place New York, Meu York 30003 C'.ntiti:en:
(
By letter dated June 4,1971, you requ2ntad, in r.ccordtnce with j
10 CFi? "ection 23.5m er.he cmdsnicn'a
- a. ;.1r.tiena, im I
em:ptien nu t.i.2 reyine::._n'.n cf 13 07t.'. > ticr. 20.M3 uitn
."..d " r.o. c. i. *. c a'. ' ", '.-.... 1-10. ', " ~.~u "... ". a~ ' c..
-. m.v., t...
. n. %... 1c. s,
.. ~~
. v..
>.a
."i;*. ~..~.~ m.4i ~.~. c.'ca-pm a.
cc..., ct.,. m.. tm-; gn u-
.e,,
. m -
^
i
..>u
...,,,..J,
%.. v. _
- 4.,..,.. -
. >,,.., t a., pan,.,. m.>.
, ~.
o
.p ro,.,,., c u.....
c.
v...
.4
.. u u
,t,......
..O..r;m.., c,, i' w ' ".'m ~.;, 'v..
- 4. ' r. '. ~.. u~ ' e.'. c. ~.. '_e, o."
c... n., ~~....
2.
_..s gcontrol icd senin.
In.:.ieu cr ccmi.innM '.'ith the requirrents of 19 CFh.%cticn 23.103, noted abcve, you nnm recuactel cuthori-c r..
.d.
n,. m., o..s..,4
.-)
- .. J. g.1....s.
_4.a al v f. h,
~v.%..
4
.c.,1c.,1 0 c_,.l %,,
>si s
...g
.a.
9 u s.
..u. -n t. t s,, L-r 4 a,4. On 4
d- - s -.,, 3
.,pu, c r. -
..Q,.. %.,., n r,3 p.. O.....J.,......
m.
A ca.
.o.
e
.a u
m li:rdts spccifie.d in 10 CFR Sactica 20.101.
O a". r..'..t.c. ' e f 1.'. '.' ~. pe ca.'.'. i.. dn". -. ".v,. '. o'.'t
.~.~..~ _' +- i s~.'.
a a ".4."u' v"....M. m c'u-i vou pre..' ace, tc; ether.rith cur r: victe or :na '.eri.rd cul Ee-e ifi.
cat,cna of trov.,s.ican para ng ucenze i:3.,u n c; which prov,ce u
po.. e..,1.) m. ac..ranic, l'n(gicni_.cc.> Q.. n -
.. /a
- e. uu-.. e i
-M.. n.4,.. v J..r. c.. 'o1s s.
a..
m
.. u m.
e m
u.
a tnd p"occipn, e,. 0..!fied paraennel, end ::c"p' $ ng cr.d raiiation mtection (:!utp:a.:nt, :n'; r.vulab'le to parrm. " a n. '. ca.ty
',n a narc nr.inc.'.
'iniri nativity doen not require cny c'.n:r...:e in the Technical Specificatient nor doca.tt dr.vclve Lny unrevie.'ca u?.foty quantion. Aa a connoc.uence, we hmva coneufei that ca en.ntion f n.at t:.
p. r;
' c nn c.,
.H ' C' l. :. Mn ;:0.14,
.<3 ;. m, in i :.'.ti l' ; '..!
L*/ 3 ',
- id L ill J t r. a L '. 5D '. ':... U 1 LdL d UO 13 7e Or s
...,.w.~...t.....L....... O.-
., p. g,., i.. ; w,, o i.]. :..,2.g s. pe
,..... m.. ;
--.t c.......,
i a 4
A Il f...
'l.
) f) CP's../. /,S ! #.. a '
't.
l
/
..w.
- w..i-_
o a..... empo Dr Wh
..,